Interesting use of scare quotes. That is, if Age is aware of such things.
any way - two words.
Anyway, …
1 Like
Exactly. Now you’ve got it. That’s a good use of the adverb.
Just out of curiosity, would you like us to Correct all of your grammatical errors?
Oh dear. I’m afraid that by writing, “Just out of curiosity, would you like us…”, you’ve created a misplaced modifier. Syntactically, that opening phrase attaches to the subject “you,” which grammatically attributes the curiosity to me (the target), rather than you (the asker). At best, it’s structural slurry. (Modifier Problems)
Anyway, in answer to your question, I hope you do whatever you want to do. I hope, that is, that you, Age, and anyone else included in that ‘us’ do whatever you want to do.
I love that capital ‘C’ in ‘Correct’, by the way
Okay “iwannaplato”
1 Like
Okay, Age/Ken/anew1
Is ILP and this whole entire conversation forum an internet cult conspiracy?
How would we know if it is or isn’t?
That’s bullshit, gf. We all know it is a common short hand for “just out of curiosity, I would like to ask you if.”
I agree. If you spend enough time discussing things - other than me - with anew1, you’ll understand why I did that.
LOL “other than me” coming from one who is one of the biggest ones who ‘talks about another’.
As can be clearly seen and proved by the number of its posts, which are ‘about another’.
What I meant was, dear Age, that right now he may bond with you over critiquing me, but the moment you two start discussing something else, the bond will break. What I wrote was not chastising anyone for talking about another. But you assumed and got it wrong.
What is this “bond”, exactly, which you are imagining here?
LOL What even is ‘it’, which you assumed I assumed?
What is that I supposedly ‘assumed’, which you claim I got wrong
Read the first sentence of my two sentence post to find what the ‘it’ referred to.
Notice how this one has an absolute fear, which it cannot override, to just clarify.
This fear also stops it from seeking out clarity from others.
Which, again, is another sign of one who was very severely abused.
Imagine being so mentally abused previously that you now believe that communication is based on APE-thinking, only.
LOL I never even thought, let alone mentioned absolutely anything about ‘chastising’, yet this one laughably believed, absolutely, that ‘chastising’ was what I was referring to.
Now, because it will not, because it can not, clarify, what we have here is it assumed that I assumed some thing, and that I got ‘it’ wrong. Which is truly hilarious considering the fact that I had never ever once even assumed what it assumed I assumed.
Part of the problem is that you can’t keep track of context. The reason I didn’t want to go back is because one of the patterns of discussing things with you is that you expect others to disprove your assertions, if they disagree. IOW you assert something, say it is True and Real, unless we can disprove it. So, we are presented with the idea that your assertions stand unless they are proven false. So, others get the burden of disproof and you have no burden of proof. Yes, you have given reasons for some of these claims, that there are reasons you cannot or should not, now, in this time and forum, give the proof. But here we are: our assertions meet requests for justification, and any assertions in the justification get similar requests. So, should we follow your suggested approach, we will be justifying our positions - and if they differ from yours, you will never be satisfied with the justifications. Thus we create a lot of text, do a lot of work. That process does fit a philosophy forum to some degree.
Then when it comes to your positions, we are told that unless we can disprove them, they are true. So, again, we must justify the position that it is not true. So, again, we are working in ways you do not think you need to. There are other patterns in these processes that make them unpleasant beyond the overriding double standard. Often after writing something, we will get a summation, perhaps with some LOLs or perhaps referring to us as ‘it’ or ‘you humans’ or talking about people at the time this is being written in negative ways.
I certainly did work with your suggestion of asking for clarification in the past at PN. But after doing this and finding that you would break off the topic and say you can’t now reveal this here: whatever the issue was - and/or finding that the process became this endless loop - or I noticed, yes the double standard, I stopped being interested in getting clarification from you.
This of course is utterly impossible to you. My behavior in relation to you is timeless, is not the result of anything you have done and it is my universal approach. It simply cannot be true that you contribute, let alone cause, the patterns you are critical of.
Now having said this I can expect that you will use this against me. The main problem for that tactic here, however, is that I can track the history and have done that. Further, there are others who have gone through the same process.
Your inability to ever admit a mistake or contradiction, except minor things like typos means that you can actually ask why I would think you thought the following was funny:
LOL you adults are so inflicted by “this lesson”, ‘in this current world right now’, that you actually vote for some of the biggest ‘psychopaths’ to, laughably, ‘lead you’.
You could try to make a case that the LOL wasn’t really about the topic you were talking about. Likewise the ‘laughably’, but not even managing to admit that the writing was extremely misleading, shows a real lack of character. And, really, there’s no way to redirect the LOL.
Unfortunately, for you, you cannot possibly admit to yourself that I was just rather generous to you. Especially given that habitual response that is about to come from you.
Yeesh.
1 Like
Once again, it is ‘me’ who cannot do something here.
Is it an absolute impossibility that ‘just maybe’ I have been keeping track of context more or better than you believe?
For example, could I have been keeping track of context and noticed that what you assumed I assumed, I have never ever assumed?
Is it possible that me noticing that I did not assume what you assumed I assumed is because I was actually keeping track of context?
By the way, what the word ‘problem’ means to me is very, very different from what it means to you.
Which, by the way, I have noticed because ‘just maybe’ I have been keeping track of context far more than some believe.
Are you aware that this is another presumption of yours ‘about me’, which might just be a wrong presumption? Or, is this an impossibility?
I have never wanted absolutely anyone to disprove my assertions, if they disagree. I just ask clarifying questions, to those who disagree, to find out and see what ‘proof’ they have for their disagreement.
I have a very specific reason for when I assert something, and then say it is True and Real. And, it is absolutely certainly not what you just claimed it was for.
I can only suggest you remain open and seek out clarity before you respond. I certainly cannot, and certainly would never want to, make you do it.
you are absolutely free to presume what I write means absolutely anything. But, considering that you never sought out clarity before you jumped to the above conclusions, I will inform you that your presumptions and conclusions might just be partly or absolutely Wrong.
If you want to “accept” the idea that my assertions stand unless they are proven false, then okay. But, I never necessarily presented that idea. In fact, I have invited being questioned and challenged over my claims and assertions.
Also, could it be a fact that absolutely everyone’s assertions stand, unless they are proven false as well? Is this not just a given?
Again, this is your conclusion. This is absolutely nothing that I have ever thought or said.
Also, all of this seems a truly drawn-out distraction and deflection.
What are you meaning here?
Requests are exactly what I have been waiting very patiently for.
This, again, is what you have concluded. This has absolutely nothing at all to do ‘with me’.
you have written lots and lots of text, and if you call that a lot of work, then okay, but with a lot of your text you have not really gotten anywhere here. I have written about how World Peace can and will come about. I, again, am just waiting, patiently, for those with interest.
I have never written a single word, absolutely anywhere, about my positions being disproved by any of you, So, again, this exists in your imagination only. you have, once more, presumed some thing, formed a conclusion, which you believe is the truth, but which has absolutely nothing at all to do ‘with me’.
I have shared some of ‘my positions’, and I just wait patiently for those, if any, who show interest.
I have also claimed that I can back up and support ‘my positions’ with irrefutable facts and proof. And, because I know I can do this I have never even had a thought about them being disproven, so I certainly have not told anyone ‘my positions/claims’ stand unless you people can disprove them. Obviously, if anyone does have actual proof that does disprove them, then by all means please share that proof. I, for One, would certainly love to see it.
My positions stand because, to me, they make perfect sense, and form a perfectly crystal clear picture of the Truth of things.
But, there is no ‘must’ here. you do not have do anything. But, I suggest that if you have proof that justifies the position that my position/claim is not true, then just share it here. That is, of course, if you ‘want to’. Again, there is no ‘must have to’ here.
This is just another conclusion of yours that you believe is true, but which does not apply ‘to me’ at all.
What you call “patterns” here are again not what actually exists. They are just figments of your imagination, which you have made up and formed from beliefs and assumptions.
you can take absolutely anything in negative or positive ways. But, a lot of what I write is not what you are imagining and “seeing”
For example, I have never talked about absolutely any human being negatively. Again, I am responsible for what I mean, not for how you understand.
you are free to claim this. Does this assertion of yours stand until proven false or we disprove it?
I have never ever said that anywhere nor said anything even like that and meant that But, maybe you believe your assertion here stands, unless we first prove it false.
Okay. So, allegedly, you have now stopped being interested in getting clarification ‘from me’. So,
- Why did you start a new thread about getting clarification ‘from me’?
- What is it you want ‘from me’ here, if not clarification?
Have you noticed your pattern of telling others what they are thinking, how they are feeling, and what they believe and disbelieve?
This is a very, very vague statement and claim from ‘my perspective’. Would you like to elaborate at all?
If you have concluded and believe this, then okay.
Use what against you exactly?
If you are referring to you saying this, then how could I possibly use what you say against you exactly?
Everyone can track the history.
Okay.
you are absolutely free to believe this to be absolutely true. But if, in your previous two sentences, you were trying to claim that you, or others, have been backtracking through all of our discussions and you never found one example of when I have admitted a mistake or a contradiction, then just be forewarned some of us might find this somewhat very hard to accept considering that you have a few times wanted to mention that I have written over 30,000 posts.
But, would you like your assertion here to stand, unless we can prove it false?
Okay.
Have you ever seen me write suggesting that people seek out and obtain clarity before they presume absolutely anything?
We are in a philosophy forum, how could ‘you’ be ‘generous’ ‘to me’, exactly?
What is that ‘response’, exactly?